Memories of Burmese Rohingya Refugees: Contested Identity and Belonging 1st ed. 2017 Edition by Kazi Fahmida Farzana (Author)

Contested Identity and Belonging
KAZI FAHMIDA FARZANA
Memories of Burmese
Rohingya Refugees

Memories of Burmese Rohingya Refugees
“It is an excellent work which shows a lot of promise. I am impressed by Kazi
Fahmida Farzana’s theoretical contribution and primary research on Burmese
Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. She contributes to the scholarship, which calls
for more attention to the social and political processes of forced migration and
identity politics that generates protracted displacement.”
—Bina D’Costa, PhD Fellow, College of Asia and the Pacific
Australian National University, Australia
“This is an extremely well written, multi-disciplinary, eclectic piece of work. The
book knits the varied strands together to enhance the understanding of a critical
issue in all its varied dimensions. It is well-argued, and the diagrams, pictures and
drawings render the study more interesting. As is well known illustrations are able
to tell more than words can. It makes original contribution to the existing know
ledge on the subject.”
—Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, PhD Former Advisor, Bangladesh
Caretaker Government, and ex-Ambassador to the United Nations
Currently Principal Research Fellow, Institute of South Asian
Studies, National University of Singapore

Kazi Fahmida Farzana
Memories of Burmese
Rohingya Refugees
Contested Identity and Belonging

ISBN 978-1-137-58619-3 ISBN 978-1-137-58360-4 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58360-4
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017946650
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.
Cover illustration: © Spaces Images/gettyimages
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Nature America Inc.
The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.
Kazi Fahmida Farzana
Universiti Utara Malaysia
Kedah, Malaysia

To those Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh who shared their stories in hopes of
improving their lives and history
and
to my beloved parents
Quazi Qudrat & Sharifa Begum

vii
I am grateful to numerous people whose active and sincere cooperation
and invaluable support were fundamental to produce this book. Foremost,
I am gratefully indebted to those refugees who trusted me and shared
their stories in hopes of improving their lives, and participated in the inter-
views and dialogues. This book could not have been completed without
the generous cooperation of my informants. Without going into spelling
their names individually, I express my deepest thanks and gratitude to
them all collectively.
A number of institutions and people have helped me during my field-
work for this research. Among them, I thank Professor Dr. Imtiaz Ahmed
of Dhaka University and Dr. Chowdhury Abrar of Refugee and Migratory
Movements Research Unit for extending their support for this research and
sharing published materials from their personal archives. I owe my grati-
tude to Chris Lewa, executive director of the Arakan Project in Thailand,
who provided me with many valuable unpublished documents; Dr.
Khurshid Alam, executive director of Community Development Centre
based in Chittagong, who generously helped through his connections to
find a safe place during my stay in the field in that remote border area in
Teknaf, Bangladesh. Thanks also to the officials of Integrated Protected
Area Co-management Project in Teknaf, and Delwar Hossain, area man-
ager of Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), Cox’s Bazar,
who offered much encouragement and support. I am deeply indebted to
Lieutenant Arafat, the district head of the Directorate General of Forces
Intelligence Teknaf branch, for all his generous time and kind assistance.
Acknowledgments

viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Necessary encouragement and a supportive environment in which to
thrive as a scholar and a teacher were provided at the National University
of Singapore (NUS) by successive heads of the department of South Asia
Studies Programme A/P Dr. Gyanesh Kudaisya and A/P Dr. Young Mun
Cheong. My two former supervisors, A/P Dr. Shapan Adnan and Professor
Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, at my home institution, have both made a positive
impact on my life and work. I was privileged to have enjoyed the interac-
tion of many renowned academicians from diverse fields at NUS. A/P Dr.
Vineeta Shinha of the sociology department has offered me sage advice
and invaluable assistance, ranging from generating ideas, reading of my
first draft of empirical chapters, and providing critical comments. Dr. Carl
Grundy-Warr of the geography department has remained a steadfast sup-
port from the moment I began to assemble my thoughts and research
findings until developing this manuscript.
I am grateful to the following, whose names I cannot go without
mentioning: Irene Nai and Chye Seng of the Multimedia Development
Laboratory, for their assistance on computer-related matters; Dr. Chie
Ikeya of Southeast Asian Studies Programme at NUS, for her help in
translating some Burmese documents; Professor Dr. Leszek Buszynski of the
Australian National University (ANU), for his faith in my work and abil-
ity; Professor Dr. Habibul Haque Khondker of Zayed University, UAE, and
Associate Professor Dr. Ishtiaq Hossain of International Islamic University
Malaysia for their advice and encouragement.
I have also had the pleasure of working with Dr. Serene Lim, an expe-
rienced, skilled, and reliable proof-editor. Her thorough reading with
necessary editing has greatly improved the quality of my presentation.
However, I take personal responsibility for the analysis and conclusions, as
well as any remaining errors and omissions that may have gone unnoticed
in the book.
I would like to thank Palgrave for allowing me to reuse some mate-
rials published in journals and edited books: Studies in Ethnicity and
Nationalism (2015), Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities
(2016), and book chapter in Children and Violence (2016), and Myanmar’s
Mountain and Maritime Borderscapes (2016). Feedbacks from anonymous
reviewers were also helpful in strengthening my argument and analysis,
adding information to my final manuscript.
Many wonderful friends and colleagues, from around the world, have
rendered me much support throughout the journey. My heartfelt thanks
to Petra Pojer, Timothy Murphy, Jeff Parkey, Rie Nakamura, Shayela

ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Mian, Jan Oppie, Sherko Kirmanj, Ananya Samajdar, Shumaila, Nargis,
Ngawang, Ummu Atiya, Nazaria, Ratnaria, Deeba, and Mohita.
I am very fortunate in having tight-knit family members around me
that have given me total support, cooperation, and unconditional love.
My husband, Md Moniruzzaman, has been very supportive and under-
standing, allows me to pursue my passion relentlessly. My greatest respect
is to my beloved parents for their unending prayers and moral support
throughout my life. Most affectionate thanks to my mother, Syeda Sharifa
Begum, for giving her full support and particularly for taking care of my
precious baby daughter, Fariha Zaman, in the final stage of this project.
My deepest thanks to my dearest father, Quazi Qudrat-e-Khuda, for tak-
ing interest in my work, and from time to time, sending research materials
to me from across the miles. Both my younger brother Md Faisal and
sister Kazi Shahzabeen have always been dependable friends to me. My
parents-in-law Md Abdul Hai and Rokeya Begum have been a source of
encouragement for my work.
Last but not least, I believe that no achievement can be possible, and
no one could have been a better help for me than the mercy and blessings
of my God. Therefore, all praises are to that loving and caring Almighty.

xi
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 The Historical and Politico-Military Context of the Border 41
3 The Refugee Problem from an Official Account 59
4 Reconstructions of Social Memory by Refugees 87
5 Everyday Life in Refugee Camps 145
6 Music and Art as Symbols of Identity and Everyday
Resistance 191
7 Conclusion 233
Appendix 1 Chronological Genealogy of the Shah
of Arakan (1430 A.D.–1638 A.D.) 249
Appendix 2 Some Basic Facts About the Teknaf Area 251
Index253

xiii
Kazi Fahmida Farzana is a senior lecturer in the Department of
International Affairs and a research fellow at the Centre for Asian Studies
at the Universiti Utara Malaysia. Her areas of specialization are South
and Southeast Asian politics, national identity, ethnic conflicts, stateless-
ness, and contemporary political theories. She teaches Nationalism and
Ethnic Conflicts in International System, Diplomacy, Politics of East Asia,
International Organizations, and Seminar on International Relations. She
has a PhD from the National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore.
Her articles have appeared in Studies in Ethnicity Nationalism, Asian
Journal of Social Science, Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies,
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, and Asian Geographic, and in edited
volume published by ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore, and
Cambridge University Press.
About the Author

xv
Fig. 3.1 Repatriation from Bangladesh (2000–2005). Last repatriation
date: July 28, 2005, family 01, person 02, total third country
resettlement up to 2009: 262 persons 73
Fig. 4.1 Types of abuses in Arakan (Rakhine) state 89
Fig. 4.2 Reasons for feeling unsafe in Bangladesh 118
Fig. 5.1 Occupation (by gender) of refugees in Nayapara camp 162
List of Figures

xvii
Table 3.1 The trade positions from 1992 to 1997 79
Table 5.1 Food distribution in Nayapara camp 150
Table 5.2 The birth and death rates in Nayapara camp from
2000 to 2005 157
Table 5.3 The displaced Rohingyas in many parts of the world 164
List of Tables

xix
Diagram 4.1 The process underlying the displacement and forced
migration of the Rohingyas 116
List of Diagram

xxi
List of Pictures
Picture 4.1 Notice of eviction (in Burmese language) 100
Picture 4.2 Notice of eviction (English translation) 101
Picture 4.3 An undocumented refugee home hidden from view at
the hill top near the town 132
Picture 4.4 The muddy slippery hilly slopes used as a staircase to reach
refugees’ hidden location 133
Picture 5.1 Refugee children playing in the camp 166

xxiii
Map 1.1 Northern Arakan on the Bangladesh-Myanmar border.
Source: Christie (1996) 3
Map 1.2 Research sites in Teknaf. Source: Banglapedia, National
Encyclopedia of Bangladesh. Retrieved from Banglapedia
website: http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/C_0364.htm23
Map 5.1 Nayapara camp. Source: The original administrative map of
Nayapara camp was collected from the camp office. It has
been simplified for the purpose of using in this chapter by
the author 148
List of Maps

xxv
Drawing 5.1 We cannot play freely 167
Drawing 5.2 We want to go to that school, but they would not
let us go out 169
Drawing 5.3 Our teacher sleeps while teaching class 170
Drawing 5.4 A “thank you” note from Shabnam 171
Drawing 6.1 Eviction from villages and torture in the model village area 211
Drawing 6.2 Destruction of Rohingya property in Arakan 213
Drawing 6.3 Forced labor: Physical torture on women and children 214
Drawing 6.4 Life on both sides of the border: The River Naff 215
Drawing 6.5 Complicated and difficult realities on both sides of
the River Naff 218
Drawing 6.6 Life in Bangladesh: At the Nayapara refugee camp 219
Drawing 6.7 An uncertain dream for a better future 220
List of Drawings

1© The Author(s) 2017
K.F. Farzana, Memories of Burmese Rohingya Refugees,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58360-4_1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
In the context of modern territorially demarcated nation-states system,
an individual without a national identity is an anomaly. This is because
people cannot escape being connected to a state even when the state has
disowned them. Despite this understanding being very fundamental to
the system of nation-states, the question of identity formation remains.
What are the criteria or factors that identify an individual with a particular
nation? Who decides on the criteria? Is identity a natural entitlement or a
label conferred by the authorities? What is the relationship between iden-
tity and institutions? Such questions are at the heart of identity formation
debate, and demand an exploration of how the state practices its sover-
eignty and suppresses the voices of its citizens’ and non-citizens’ (those
who live on the borderland) experiences of conflict in order to produce
state’s unity. In this process, many states have failed to resolve violence,
generated forced migration, and created stateless populations.
Today in many state-centric conflicts, we find peoples (citizens and
non-citizens of a country) are forced to leave their country for neighbor-
ing countries that do not want them. They flee in order to avoid vio-
lence, persecution, and threats to their lives which are often produced
by the governments or the elites among whom they live. In 2017, the
UNHCR estimated the number of forcibly displaced people worldwide
to be about 65.3 million, about 21.3 million of whom are refugees liv-
ing in developing countries. Despite their untold sufferings—forced to
flee their home country and losing their familiar socio-economic, natural,

2
and political environments—and having to face and negotiated various
enormous humanitarian challenges in their host countries, refugees and
displaced people worldwide are largely marginalized. The Palestinian
refugees in Jordan and Syria, the Kurdish refugees from Iraq to Turkey
and Iran, the Roma from France to Bulgaria and Romania, the flight of
Afghans to Pakistan, the flight of Tibetans from China to India, the exo-
dus of Burmese Indians after Myanmar’s independence in 1948, the exo-
dus of Sri Lankan Indians and Sri Lankan Tamils, the stranded Pakistanis
(Biharis) in Bangladesh, the flights of Chakmas from Bangladesh to India,
and the Vietnamese refugees in the Philippines are all examples of the
consequences of actions taken by repressive governments or dominant
ethnic groups among whom they live. And all these cases demonstrate
that peoples (citizens and non-citizens), who are dissatisfied within the
boundary of the nation-state, can actually challenge the state (country of
origin as well as the host state) at any time through various means that
range from conventional resistance movement to even non-conventional
confrontation. This book tells such a story.
There are about two million Rohingyas in Myanmar/Burma, approxi-
mately 800,000 of whom live in northern Rakhine (previously Arakan)
state. About half a million have migrated to other parts of the world. An
estimated 328,500 now live in Bangladesh (Map 1.1), as documented
and undocumented refugees.1
The documented refugees, estimated at
28,500, live in two official registered refugee camps, and the vast major-
ity of undocumented refugees, estimated to be between 200,000 and
300,000, live in scattered settlements among the host population in the
whole of Teknaf, Ukhia, and Cox’s Bazar. Such figures are merely indica-
tive of some much deeper issues. The central problem of the Rohingyas is
the question of the group’s political identity and hence its belonging. The
Rohingyas claim Burmese citizenship as their natural right and claim that
they are entitled to enjoy all citizenship rights, including state protection,
just like any other Burmese citizen. In contrast, the Burmese state politi-
cal authority considers them “Bengali,” “illegal immigrants,” and “never”
having been a part of Myanmar’s history. Hence, they ought to be excluded
from Myanmar’s national identity. Meanwhile, the Bangladeshi govern-
ment maintains that the Rohingyas were not originally from Bangladesh.
They were not officially known until 1977, when they first crossed the
border from Myanmar in huge numbers because of political upheaval in
their land of origin. Hence, the Bangladeshi government notes, they are
rightfully labeled “refugees” and ought to return. Such political denials on
1 INTRODUCTION

3
both sides increase the complexity of the situation, and prolong the crisis
by pushing the Rohingyas back and forth across state boundaries.
This book takes an in-depth look into the root and precipitating causes
and consequences of the Burmese Rohingya2
refugees’ displacement,
and calls for more attention to the social and political processes of forced
migration and identity politics that generate protracted displacement. The
importance of this book lies in its ability to present an alternative and
endogenous interpretation of the problem in contrast to the exogenous
one presented by actors such as state institutions, non-governmental orga-
nizations, and media. The main theoretical contribution of this book lies
Map 1.1 Northern Arakan on the Bangladesh-Myanmar border. Source: Christie
(1996)
1 INTRODUCTION

4
in conceptualizing everyday resistance and negotiations through socio-
cultural memories of the refugees. The study is based on original research,
largely drawn from fieldwork data. It explores the voices and artistic
expressions of those dispossessed, displaced, and marginalized by the poli-
cies and decisions of the nation-state. It also creates some space within the
discourse to take into account the untold stories of the people concerned
and capture their voices that usually remain unheard. The comprehensive-
ness of this book would help to explain and understand the current politics
of identity and belonging at the Myanmar-Bangladesh border.
Identity: Citizenship and Multiculturalism
Many theoretical approaches have addressed the questions of individual
identity within a given socio-political context. Powerful ideologies such as
nationalism and socialism have turned the identity question highly politi-
cal (Gellner 1983[1992], 1994), generating various approaches such as
liberalism, totalitarianism, and neoliberalism. Each of these approaches
has offered analytical frameworks to crystallize the process of social and
political identity formation of individuals. This section outlines the major
theoretical approaches to identity, and places the question of Rohingya
identity within those folds. The major argument here is that, even though
liberalism is regarded as the champion in solving the identity question
through various mechanisms, the theories and the state institutions prac-
ticing the theories have apparently failed to address the identity of the
displaced Rohingya refugees.
The most powerful ideology that has directly addressed the question of
identity is nationalism (Anderson 1991; Hobsbawm 1994) which claims a
sovereign state over a particular territory on behalf of a community of peo-
ple. The ideology is constituted of a mixture of unifying symbols such as
emotion, language, ethnic origin, historical experience, culture, and reli-
gion. However, no human community is exclusively different from others
in these respects, which makes the territorial identity formation difficult.
Due to such practical realities, two grand approaches to national identity
formation have emerged: the civic-political model and the cultural-ethnic
model (Ahmed 2008).
The civic model has its origin in the French Revolution’s liberty, equal-
ity, and fraternity, which conferred an identity of egalitarian citizenship
and political rights to all irrespective of differences. In contrast, the ethnic
model of national identity originated in the German Romantic Movement,
which rejected the French universalism and emphasized homogenous
1 INTRODUCTION

5
ethnic and cultural factors instead (Ahmed 2008; Smith 1986). This
form of identity was to be based on exclusive common characteristics,
which later degenerated into extreme forms such as totalitarianism, chau-
vinism, racism, and fascism based on hatred and superiority complex
(Arendt 1966[1958]). The experience of such identity-building process
in Germany and Italy proved to be highly disastrous.
However, it is the French model that received universal acceptance,
especially in the post-war period, which gradually took the shape of liber-
alism (Galston 1991). As such, liberal nationalism prescribed multiplicity
of identity under one grand national identity. People in the private sphere
can maintain their peculiar ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diver-
sities in which the state does not interfere. However, within the public
sphere, the individuals are subjected to the government’s standard rules
and regulations and regarded as equal in terms of enjoying public utilities
and rights, such as the right to vote, political association, right to educa-
tion and health services, and protection by the law.
Therefore, the theory of liberal nationalism plays an instrumental
role in offering each individual a common identity with equality, irre-
spective of any perceived differences in public spheres (Rusciano 2003).
However, heterogeneity among the people creates practical problems that
place state and people’s identity at loggerheads (Ahmed 1998, Chap. 2).
Heterogeneity implies differences of taste, preferences, attitude, lifestyle,
and internal system. Due to specific peculiarities, people tend to maintain
centripetal tendency toward their own internal specific heritage and cus-
toms. This obviously brings liberalism into conflict with diversities. Several
fundamental questions arise out of the practical reality, such as: what does
the equality mean for ethnic and racial groups? How should the theory be
put into practice, so as to achieve equality? How can state institutions and
distributive mechanisms be arranged to ensure equal rights?
Over the past few decades, a number of theories under liberalism have
offered various mechanisms to accommodate heterogeneity at the private
level while maintaining a common identity at the public level. The most
prominent of these theories are citizenship and multiculturalism.
Citizenship: A Theoretical Debate
The idea of citizenship is as old as the idea of politics itself. In ancient
Greece, Plato and Aristotle conceptualized citizenship as a privileged
status to be claimed and enjoyed by the male gender of certain classes,
namely, the property-owning freemen, soldiers, guardians, and the judges
CITIZENSHIP: A THEORETICAL DEBATE

6
(Russell 2010[1946]). The rest of people in society such as the labor class,
merchants, women, and slaves were not entitled to be citizens (Ahmed
2005). Such an understanding of citizenship as a domain of privileged
classes did not change much until the eighteenth century (Marshall 1965)
and before the emergence of modern nationalism. In the post-war multi-
ethnic and multiracial state, a universal citizenship was considered the
most useful mechanism to achieve and maintain social unity (Vesselinov
2010). Gradually, through state practice and international treaties, the idea
became universal as well, within the fold of liberal democracy (Spinner
1994). The theory of citizenship attracted renewed academic interest after
1960, due to the upsurge of ethnonationalism in many parts of the world
(Ong 2005). Secessionist movements based on ethnic identity such as
those in the Iberian Peninsula, in the Balkans, and the Kashmiris in the
subcontinent are some of the examples of enthonationalist movements
that renewed the debate on citizenship and nationality.
Citizenship is understood in two different ways. One, it is related to the
idea of individual entitlement, and second, it refers to attachment to a politi-
cally sovereign state. A theory of citizenship includes the question of indi-
vidual identity and socio-political conducts and responsibilities, roles, and
loyalties (Turner 1992), which is also known as the “theory of nationality”
(Hibbert 2008). The dimensions of citizenship include horizontal relation-
ships among individuals and vertical relationship between individuals and the
state (Staeheli 2010). Kymlicka and Norman (1994) call these overlapping
aspects of citizenship “citizenship-as-legal-status,” in which an individual’s
political membership is a component part of a given political community, and
“citizenship-as-desirable-activity,” which refers to the degree and nature of
an individual’s participation and contribution to that community. From the
perspective of liberalism, citizenship has both Leftist and Rightist spectrums.
The Leftist Theory of Citizenship
T. H. Marshall’s (1949) “Citizenship and Social Class” is considered the
most influential modern exposition of the conception of citizenship-as-
rights. To Marshall, citizenship is primarily a matter of every individual’s
right, as a member, to full and equal treatment in a society. This percep-
tion and sense of membership to a society can be assured through giving
people increasing citizenship rights (Cohen 2010).
Marshall divides citizenship rights into three categories. Firstly, civil
rights such as individual freedom, liberty of the person, freedom of
1 INTRODUCTION

7
thought, speech and faith, the right to own property and to conclude valid
contracts, and the right to justice, all of which appeared in the eighteenth
century. Secondly, political rights in the form of universal suffrage that
emerged in the nineteenth century. And finally, social rights such as the
right to public education, health care, and unemployment benefits that
have become established in the twentieth century with the development of
a welfare state (Marshall 1965). Marshall also argues that with the expan-
sion of the rights of citizenship, the class of citizens has also expanded. For
instance, civil and political rights were earlier restricted only to property-
owning white Protestant men. But over time, these have been extended to
other classes of people such as Catholics and Jews, blacks, women, and the
working-class groups (Levy and Miller 1998; Ling and Monteith 2004;
Boyd and Burroughs 2010).
Obviously, Marshall’s concept of citizenship can be practiced within a
state that is liberal, democratic, and pro-welfare in nature. By giving the
three types of rights, the liberal democratic welfare state can ensure that
every individual is made to feel that he/she is a full member, and can par-
ticipate in, and enjoy, all the benefits of society. This means that a violation
or withdrawal of civil, political, and social rights will create social alien-
ation for the people. Social alienation may then develop into “passive” or
“private” citizenship, where people confine their rights in passive entitle-
ments and abstain from participation in public life. This view is known as
the Left view on citizenship, which argues that citizenship involves both
rights and responsibilities where the right to participate must precede the
responsibilities. That means that it is only appropriate to demand fulfill-
ment of the responsibilities after the rights to participate have been secured
(Fitzpatrick 2001; Martin et al. 2006; Steenbergen 1994; Pierson 2004).
Marshall or the Leftists believed that the state creates a participatory
“common culture” by “empowering” citizens to democratize the welfare
state which socializes them with political participation, responsibilities and
duties (Oldfield 1990), and socio-economic and political virtues (Galston
1991).
Yet, the Left is often blamed for the imbalance between rights and
responsibilities, because of its claim that these are to be ensured even in
the absence of the citizens fulfilling their social and political responsibilities
(Andrews 1991; Held 1991; Mead 1986; Oldfield 1990; Pierson 1991).
The critics argue that citizenship responsibilities should be incorporated
more explicitly into left-wing theory (Hoover and Plant 1988; Mouffe
1992; Vogel and Moran 1991), because it seems clear that the Left still
CITIZENSHIP: A THEORETICAL DEBATE

8
lacks a “language of responsibility” commensurate with its notion of citi-
zenship, or a set of concrete policies to promote these responsibilities.
However, some argue that Marshall’s conception is still strong because,
evidently, “social citizenship did not abolish political citizenship in lib-
eral democracies. Political citizenship did not extinguish civil citizenship”
(Cohen 2010, p. 83).
The New Right on Citizenship
Marshall’s and the Leftist’s conceptions of citizenship have increasingly
come under attack in the past decades. The most politically powerful cri-
tique of his theory came from the New Right, which maintains an extreme
view of liberalism, seeking to reverse the leftist position of widening the
scope of citizenship rights and ending inequality (King 1987). The New
Right believes that “inequality is a pre-requisite for societal develop-
ment and progress advocating to seek not only to revive the role of mar-
ket mechanism and to end collectivist state policy but also to dismantle
citizenship rights” (King 1987, p. 3). The New Right has consistently
resisted these rights on the grounds that they were: (a) inconsistent with
the demands of (negative) freedom or justice; (b) economically inefficient;
and (c) similar to maintaining a serfdom.
The New Right argues that the welfare state system has contributed
negatively to the individuality of citizens by creating passivity and inaction
among the poor, degrading their living standards, and creating a culture
and mentality of dependency. According to Norman Barry (1990), there
is no evidence that welfare programs have in fact promoted more active
citizenship.
So, to ensure the social and cultural integration, one must go “beyond
entitlement,” and focus instead on their responsibility to earn a living.
Since the welfare state discourages people from becoming self-reliant, the
safety net should be cut back, and any remaining welfare benefits should
have obligations tied to them. This was the idea behind the principal
reform of the welfare state in the 1980s, introducing “workfare” pro-
grams, which required welfare recipients to work for their benefits, to
reinforce the idea that citizens should be self-supporting.
On the question of how the citizens can become active participants in
the “workfare” culture, the New Right relies heavily on the market as a
school of virtue. It believes that people’s voluntary association with civil
society will create this citizenship virtue. As Walzer put it: “the civility that
1 INTRODUCTION

9
makes democratic politics possible can only be learned in the associational
networks” of civil society (1992, p. 104). It is here that “human character,
competence, and capacity for citizenship are formed,” for it is here that
one internalizes the idea of personal responsibility and mutual obligation
and learns the voluntary self-restraint, which is essential to truly respon-
sible citizenship (Glendon 1991). It follows, therefore, that one of the
first obligations of citizenship is to participate in civil society.
However, the New Right is not beyond criticism as well. The critics
charge that it is difficult to find any evidence that the New Right reforms
of the 1980s have promoted responsible citizenship. The critics point out
that reforms aimed to give people more benefit through market deregula-
tion in order to teach them the virtues of initiative, self-reliance, and self-
sufficiency did not produce any positive result (Mulgan 1991).
Also, cutting welfare benefits, far from getting the disadvantaged back
on their feet, has expanded the underclass and exacerbated class inequali-
ties (Fierlbeck 1991; Hoover and Plant 1988). For many, therefore, the
New Right program is most probably viewed as de-construction and an
attack on the underlying principle of citizenship, and not as an alterna-
tive explanation and re-conceptualization of citizenship. Instead of accept-
ing citizenship as a political and social status, modern conservatives have
sought to reassert the role of the market and have rejected the idea that
citizenship confers a status independent of economic standing (Heater
1990; King 1987; Plant 1991).
The main issue in citizenship discourse here is whether the citizens of
the state are politically active or passive vis-à-vis their entitlement or enjoy-
ment of state welfare. However, a different dimension of citizenship debate
focuses not on entitlement and responsibility, but on belongingness to the
political community in the first place. This debate is more on the exclusion
or inclusion of membership to a particular political community or state.
Although this dimension of the debate exists in the Western societies, it is
more prevalent in the non-Western societies. Below are citizenship theo-
ries discussed from this exclusion-inclusion perspectives.
The Theory of Multiculturalism
The universal citizenship theory puts the focus on the macro image of
the society to maintain social unity. But the theory came under serious
stress over the past few decades because of the strengthening of cultural,
minority, and ethnic prominence in politics (Gellner 1987). Reflecting
THE THEORY OF MULTICULTURALISM

10
on the trend in Western democracies over the past decades, Kymlicka
observed that there are “shifts away from historic policies of assimilation
or exclusion towards a more ‘multicultural’ approach that recognizes and
accommodates diversity” (2005, p. 28). Kymlicka explains how Western
democracies have solved the problem of rights, citizenship, and nation-
hood in the following terms:
Western democracies have moved away from older models of unitary, cen-
tralized nation-state, and repudiated older ideologies of “one state, one
nation, one language.” Today virtually all Western states that contain indig-
enous peoples and substate national groups have become “multination”
states, recognizing the existence of “peoples” and “nations” within the
boundaries of the state. This recognition is manifested in a range of minor-
ity rights that include regional autonomy and official language status for
national minorities, and customary law, land claims, and self-government for
indigenous peoples. (p. 28)
The changing political trend zooms in on the micro features and
diversities in the society, giving rise to the theory of multiculturalism
(Kymlicka 1995). Following the trend, an increasing number of citizen-
ship theories are being heavily grounded on cultural pluralism (Ahmed
2005). The multicultural theorists argue that the conventional percep-
tion of citizenship rights was originally developed and defined by white
men and for white men (Marshall 1965). So, such a concept is unable to
accommodate the particular feeling, perceptions, and needs of non-white
or minority groups. On the practical side, the surge in demographic com-
position has made the universal citizenship identity much more complex,
giving rise to right-consciousness in the minority groups. In such a context
it is “identity … rather than interest … is the hallmark of new politics”
(Ahmed 2005, p. 19).
The theory of multiculturalism envisions the same social equality within
a larger common identity, through differentiated recognition, rather than
merging differences. Kymlicka (1995) argued that “a comprehensive the-
ory of justice in a multicultural state will include both universal rights,
assigned to individuals regardless of group membership. And certain
group differentiated rights or ‘special status’ for minority cultures” (p. 6).
This is because, as Young (1989, 1990) argued, group differences are
fundamental and natural; therefore, any attempt to develop a universal
conception of citizenship overlooking the group differences would be
unjust to the groups. Young advanced two reasons why recognizing,
1 INTRODUCTION

11
instead of ignoring, group differences is more important in creating a
genuine equality. Firstly, groups that are culturally excluded are already
politically disadvantaged. Thus, “the solution lies at least in part in provid-
ing institutionalized means for the explicit recognition and representation
of oppressed groups” (Young 1989, p. 259). These procedural measures
would include “public funds for advocacy groups, guaranteed representa-
tion in political bodies, and veto rights over specific policies that affect
a group directly” (Young 1989, pp. 261–262). Secondly, there are cer-
tain distinctive needs of a culturally disadvantaged group that can only
be fulfilled through policies of group differentiation. Such needs include
language rights, rights to land for Aboriginals, and women’s reproduc-
tive rights (Young 1990, pp. 175–183). Young defends these rights as a
response to five types of “oppression,” which are exploitation, marginal-
ization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and “random violence and
harassment motivated by group hatred or fear” (Young 1989, p. 261).
Mechanisms of Multiculturalism
Theories, as well as practices, suggest a number of possible responses to
identity diversity, ranging from the extreme left, seen as representing the
least tolerant view, to the extreme right, representing the most tolerant
view, on the spectrum. The extreme leftist view includes policies such as
genocide occurred in Nazi Germany during World War II and in Rwanda
in 1994, and ethnic cleansing occurred to Albanians in the Serbian terri-
tory of Kosovo. On the extreme right is a concept known as recognition
of separation and independence claims, which is more ideal than practi-
cal. Evidently, the existing states would be unlikely to compromise their
boundaries by meeting secessionist claims unless pressured by exceptional
circumstances such as foreign intervention (East Timor in 1999 and South
Sudan in 2011).
Between these two extreme positions are mechanisms that are con-
sidered tolerant and that fall under the boundary of multiculturalism.
Kymlicka (1995) has identified four such mechanisms known as assimi-
lation, integration, accommodation, and ethno-federalism. Assimilation
refers to the government policy to compel the minority groups to aban-
don their cultural peculiarities and adopt those of the majority group.
This policy strikes on the identity of the group, rather than forcing the
group out of the territory. If the group’s cultural characteristics were
eliminated, then their identity would be assimilated into the dominant

12
group. The Canadian policy, in the early twentieth century, to forcefully
segregate aboriginal children from their parents, forcing them to live in
boarding schools, was implemented to forcefully resocialize them out
of the aboriginal cultural influences. The second mechanism is integra-
tion, which involves a greater amount of willingness on both majority
and minority groups to recognize each other’s privileges and existence
in exchange for certain compromises. Here, the minority recognizes and
accepts that the majority will be culturally privileged, and will have larger
control on resources and decision-making; in exchange, the majority will
recognize and accept the minority’s right to practice and maintain aspects
of its culture. The Malaysian experience in letting the Chinese and Indian
communities continue to use their respective languages in schools and in
maintaining their vernacular and culture-specific schools are examples of
the integration mechanism.
The third multicultural mechanism is called accommodation, which
prescribes a higher degree of cultural freedom for the minority. Known
also as cultural autonomy or affirmative action policies or “special repre-
sentation rights” (Kymlicka 1995, p. 7), the accommodation mechanism
ensures extensive rights and privileges reserved for members of minority
ethnic groups. The policy may offer a range of greater rights such as the
right to attend schools where the curriculum is designed in the minority
language, special treatment in hiring, quotas for certain government posi-
tions, and preference to minority members. The affirmative action policies
of the United States exemplify the mechanism of accommodation. A much
improved and institutional version of accommodation is known as “conso-
ciational democracy” (Ahmed 2005, p. 27) practiced in the Netherlands.
And finally, the ethno-federalism policy, which confers, upon the minority
groups, territorial autonomy with a high degree of, but not complete
control over, resources and decision-making. Only specific powers are del-
egated to the groups to manage regional governance specific to the region
and the groups; an entire country could be a federation of ethnic autono-
mous territories. In this case, the ethnic minorities must be geographically
concentrated in particular regions in ways that the regions can be clearly
distinguishable from each other. Known also as “self-government rights”
(Kymlicka 1995, p. 7), such as the reservation system of the American
Indians, the demand for group rights is not seen as a temporary mea-
sure; rather, such rights are natural. Aboriginal peoples and other national
minorities such as the Quebecois or Scots claim permanent and inherent
rights, grounded in a principle of self-determination. These groups occupy
1 INTRODUCTION

13
a particular homeland or territory, and share a distinct language, culture,
heritage, and history. Such cultural nations are usually located within the
territories of a larger and different political community, but claim due to
their distinctiveness the right to self-autonomy, in order to maintain their
distinct culture and otherness. What these national minorities want is not
primarily better representation in the central government, but rather, the
transfer of power and legislative jurisdictions from the central government
to their own communities. The Belgian, Canadian, and the autonomous
regions of China are examples of ethno-federalism.
The above review of the liberal theories of citizenship implies that cit-
izenship is a contested political identity with specific qualifications and
effects. In light of the preceding discussion, citizenship can largely be
divided into formal (simply referring to membership to a nation), sub-
stantive (having rights and obligations), and differentiated (based on dif-
ferences) categories (Shipper 2010). The theory of multiculturalism and
the various mechanisms are based on recognizing differences, and hence
are known also as “differentiated citizenship” and “multicultural citizen-
ship” in contrast to the universal citizenship discussed earlier. Like uni-
versal citizenship, the differentiated citizenship model also faces criticism
and limitations. Vernon (1988) argued that if differentiated citizenship is
to be maintained in a larger common citizenship context, it would lead
to creation of dual citizenship within a single territory. Furthermore, eth-
nic groups are fragmented, and apparently, the process and demand for
increasing self-government may simply encourage the ambitious groups
to demand for greater, or even complete, independence leading to greater
security risk for the state.
A further shortcoming of the theory is that it is West-centric; like
the development of universal citizenship on the background of Western
experience, multiculturalism theory also suffers from such background
orientation. Certain Asian values such as communal precedence over indi-
vidualism and tendency to centralized economic development rather than
granting devolution and decentralization are considered major obstacles
for the multiculturalism model to fit into the Asian societies. Indeed, the
great variance in historical, cultural, and political situations in multina-
tional states suggests that any generalized answer to the question of citi-
zenship and nationality will likely be overstated (Taylor 1992).
However, counterarguments stand strong as well. Firstly, among the
Asian states, China and Malaysia are successful examples of various forms
of multiculturalism. Secondly, it can be argued that the basic norms of

14
Western liberal multiculturalism are becoming increasingly international-
ized; global debates on minority rights and citizenship are being shaped
based on Western perceptions; and these norms are being codified in
international law. Therefore, despite criticisms, the theory of differenti-
ated citizenship, especially the self-government rights, or federated mul-
ticulturalism, apparently looks more attractive for multi-ethnic nations,
in situations where integration, or common culture theory of citizenship,
was found to be inadequate in resolving issues of sub-national identities.
We have found that national identity building takes place through
the ideology of nationalism employing a mechanism called citizenship.
Citizenship implies the inclusion-exclusion process, which can follow a
liberal view of greater pluralism or an illiberal view of exclusivity. Greater
pluralism incorporates multiculturalism through various accommodative
mechanisms, but the illiberal exclusivism shows extreme intolerance to
the perceived outsiders. In order to attain pure homogenous identity, the
parochial exclusivism may resort to such extreme measures as genocide,
ethnic cleansing, and expulsion or forced migration on the one hand, or
forced assimilation with the dominant group on the other.
In the case of national identity formation, the Burmese government
clearly maintains a view of unitary assimilation policy. As a consequence,
many ethnic groups who have remained defiant to the policy are affected
by forced migration, leading to the international refugee problem along
the Burmese border with Thailand, China, India, and Bangladesh. The
forced migrated Rohingya people are one such group who claim their
belongingness to the land of Myanmar/Burma by historic evidence,
which the Burmese government has continuously denied. Being evicted
from their claimed land of origin as unwanted, and being placed in refugee
camps in a foreign land as foreigners, the Rohingya refugees clearly lack a
national identity. To place the Rohingya identity question within a larger
theoretical discourse and context, it is important to discuss the citizenship,
ethnicity, and ethnic policy of the Burmese government.
National Identity: Ethnicity and
Ethnic Policy in Myanmar
There are several initial questions to consider. What is the nature of the
Burmese society? What is the nature of the State of Myanmar? What is
the nature of citizenship policy of the State of Myanmar? How does the
Rohingya refugees’ identity question fit into the contexts?
1 INTRODUCTION

15
The Burmese society is considered one of the most ethnically diverse
societies in the world. The officially recognized 135 distinctive “ethnic
nationalities” are characterized by numerous subgroups with different dia-
lects. Any attempt to precisely account for these minority groups and sub-
groups would lead one to be perplexed with further discoveries. Referring
to such a complex social mosaic, C. M. Enriquez observed in his analysis,
A Burmese Enchantment: “All that is said here is only an introduction
to a subject so vast that, if you became re-incarnate in Burma for twenty
lives, you would still be only upon the threshold of greater discoveries.
The increasing interest would still lure you irresistibly forward to further
research” (quoted in Selth 2010, p. 401). With such diversities in eth-
nic people and their identities, how the state could possibly formulate a
common national identity is arguably the most pressing problem for the
national government.
Literature on Burma is conditioned by its exotic oriental attractions to
the past orientalists, travelers and ethnographers, and its modern secre-
tive military regimes’ exclusivity to modern social science scholars. A very
recent publication entitled Modern Burma Studies: A Survey of the Field
(Selth 2010) provides a general overview of scholarly works on Burma in
various fields, dating back to as early as the eleventh century and found
that the literature is still relatively small. Evidently, modern Burma studies
started following the European contact to the land during the sixteenth
century and most precisely during the nineteenth century with the formal
British colonization of the country. The study found that four histori-
cal turning points generated renewed interest in Burma studies: the start
of British colonialism, political independence in 1948, the start of mili-
tary regime in 1962, and the 1988 crush on prodemocracy movements.
However, a fundamental characteristic of the studies appeared since 1945
is broadly classed as history, which has, in recent years, moved increas-
ingly to include political science, economics, and anthropology. It was
only after 1988 that studies have given greater attention to ethnic and
religious minorities.
Although the history, political, sociological, ethnic, or religious stud-
ies are not all necessarily meant to outline and analyze the identity poli-
tics and ethnic policies of the Burmese governments, the various studies
directly or indirectly reflect the issues. The most obvious limitation of the
literature on ethnic minorities is that all the studies focus only on par-
ticular or selected minorities leaving the vast smaller groups out of sight.
Leach’s (1954) study on Political System of Highland Burma: A Study of
NATIONAL IDENTITY: ETHNICITY AND ETHNIC POLICY IN MYANMAR

16
Kachin Social Structure was possibly the earliest study focusing primarily
on the social system of the Kachin ethnic group. Reprinted with revisions
several times till 2008, the study provides a detailed internal structure of
the Kachin social system, but does not offer Kachin’s contested identity
vis-à-vis the state. Ashley South’s (2008) Ethnic Politics in Burma: States
of Conflict is much more about the struggles for identity politics and self-
determination of ethnic communities. South’s debates on ethnic identity
politics are reflective of ethnic responses to the state’s attempts to domi-
nate over them. He points to the very nature of ethnic identity’s dilemma
between its essential nature and fetishism, due to its construction by inter-
nal and external actors, as problematic. Set primarily within the context
of war, for self-determination as a consequence of “grievance,” the study
suffers from its paucity of studies focused on only a few ethnic communi-
ties such as the Karen, Mon, and Kachin in the main, and Wa, pa-O, and
Shan to some extent. Other ethnic groups such as Arakanese, Chin, and
Karenni are barely mentioned.
A relatively better analysis of identity politics and ethnic contestation
between the state and ethnic groups is presented in Exploring Ethnic
Diversity in Burma by Mikael Gravers (2007). Probably the most com-
prehensive in nature on ethnic minorities in Burma, the various contribu-
tors of the study maintains the stand that the formation of ethnic identity
and its complexities are relatively modern, and have emerged within the
context of colonial rule and the unified national identity drive. Analyzed
mostly from the perspectives of anthropological and sociological theo-
ries, the study again remained limited to the major known ethnic groups,
namely, the Karen, Karenni, Chin, Shan, Mon, and Kachin. The heavy
emphasis of the work on “ethnic cleansing” by the state demonstrates only
the state’s intolerant policy toward ethnic groups. Comparatively, a more
focused study on the power and authority of the minorities is Callahan’s
(2007) Political Authority in Burma’s Ethnic Minority States: Devolution,
occupation and coexistence, which analyzes three patterns of relations
reflected in the title. These patterns are indicative of the state minority
policies which are mixed between controls and compromise which the
author terms as the “emerging political complex,” in which various local
and central political authorities negotiate and renegotiate the boundary of
endogenous and national identities, rights and obligations.
A similar study is offered by Smith (2007), entitled State of Strife: The
Dynamics of Ethnic Conflict in Burma. This study takes a detailed look at
the dynamics of ethnic conflicts and separation movements, under which
1 INTRODUCTION

17
different ethnic nationalities have been able to adapt, accommodate, and
survive in the changing contexts. The persisting scenario that emerges is
that ethnic resistance continues to be a part of everyday life, while the state
authority increasingly becomes oppressive. This study outlines four major
dynamics of conflict in the context of changing political courses such as
independence, military dictatorship, “Burmese Way to Socialism,” and
prodemocracy movements. The study has basically maintained its focus on
the nature of intensity of the resistance movements at different points of
time, and it offers not much analytical and substantive contribution to the
discourse of ethnic minorities and state relationship.
By far the two most important works on ethnicity and ethnic policy of
Burma are the works by Walton (2008) and Thomson (1995). Walton’s
work on Ethnicity, Conflict, and History in Burma: The Myths of Panglong
traces the origins of Burma’s ethnic policies. Walton contended that
Burmese ethnic policy is influenced by leadership idiosyncrasy, political
ideology, and state security concerns. The origin of its ethnic policy goes
back to the 1947 Panglong Agreement signed between Aung San and
major ethnic groups prior to independence in 1948. Before independence,
the government structure created two types of political groups through its
administrative divisions of Ministerial Burma, controlled by British and
Indian officials, and Frontier Area, controlled by traditional leaders. The
first British minority policy of gradual exclusion started by excluding the
Burmese from the armed forces, eventually completed and replaced in
1925 by the Chin, Kachin, and Karen, thus creating a sense of ethnic
insecurity among the Burmese, who saw this as a potential instrument of
oppression and control by other ethnic minorities. This led the Burmese
to collaborate with the imperial Japanese occupation forces against the
British counterpart. The move clearly created antagonism between the
Burmese and the British-patronized ethnic groups, which institutionalized
the ethnic rivalry. The defeat of the British by the Japanese forces shifted
the ethnic balance completely in favor of the Burmese, and therefore, the
inevitable question of independence frightened those British-allied ethnic
groups about their status and rights in the new state of Burma. In Walton’s
word, “the most pressing question at this time was whether or not the
Frontier Areas would be associated with Ministerial Burma and if so, in
what way?” (p. 895).
Negotiation between Aung San, leader of the Burmese, the British
authority, and the minority groups led to the emergence of the feeling that
the Ministerial Burma would dominate the political landscape of the inde-

18
pendent Burma, but the British maintained a policy of consultation and
consent of the Frontier Areas about their choice. The position of Aung
San was clear and liberal: “As for the people of Frontier Areas, they must
decide by their own future. If they wish to come with us we will welcome
them on equal terms” (p. 896). Aung San’s promises, on behalf of the
Burmese majority, prior to the signing of the agreement, were reflected in
the foundational principles for federating with Burma. Signed by Burmese,
Chin, Kachin, and Shan, the agreement included internal autonomy, the
desire for a Kachin state, and the right to secession. The agreement was
reinforced by Aung’s reiteration of fair treatment and equal rights that
“if Burma gets one kyat, then you will get one kyat” (p. 897). However,
Aung did not maintain the same stand toward the non-signatories, such
as the Karen ethnic group, whose concerns he refused to consider, such as
representation and its option for future Karen state.
However, Aung’s untimely death shifted his ethnic policy during his
successor’s tenure after independence. The government of the new regime
changed the ethnic policy either because it wanted to maintain Burmese
dominance, or because of the changing circumstances of political instability
caused by ethnic and communist rebellions or due to the military regime’s
eccentricity. For instance, in 1947, the Prime Minister, U Nu, rejected
the Mon demand for self-government. Similarly, other ethnic groups were
denied the right to participate at Panglong, such as the Wa, Naga, and the
Arakanese, on the ground that “the primitive nature of their civilization
and the impossibility of the finding persons who will be able to assist in the
drawing up of Burma’s future constitution” (quoted in Walton, p. 903).
Thomson’s study (1995) represents the most theoretically oriented
analysis of ethnicity and minority policy of Burma. In Political Stability
and Minority Groups in Burma, Thomson took three fundamental
positions: Firstly, that the notions of ethnicity and nation are alien con-
cepts to the people in Burma, and therefore, policies along ethnic lines
have failed to satisfy the needs of the people. He argues that “nationalism
was really a concept among the lowland peoples, but among the much for
diverse hill peoples, whose descendants include the Kachins, Chins, Shans,
and some Karens, the colonial state was a remote and largely irrelevant as
the pre-colonial state had been, and no concept of nation existed” (p. 272).
Secondly, inherent instability and ethnic differences caused the people
to suffer from power disparities, and made them compete for control over
territories, resulting in the reinforcing of pluralistic identity and prevent-
ing loyalty to a unified identity from developing. It was due to this real-
1 INTRODUCTION

19
ity that the post-independent government mostly followed a federal state
system in allowing the ethnic groups to enjoy their local influence but, at
the same time, remain as part of the greater single nation. But the policy
failed to work, because
groups such as the Kachin, Karrenni and Shan, which had never been directly
subjugated by the former Burman kings, found themselves in a new state
under the influence of a government that was relentless in its attempt to
Burmanize them…They challenged the validity of an independent nation-
state whose definition they did not fit. (p. 273)
And finally, despite these problems, the Burmese government has
mostly followed a unitary assimilation policy after 1962 that is very
unrealistic for the people. The military government dissolved the federal
structure in favor of a tightly centralized unitary state under the model of
“Burmese Way to Socialism.” Since this period, the ethnic policy has been
one of forced assimilation of the various groups into one unified Burmese
identity. However, the 1974 constitutions adopted an apparent ethno-
federalism structure dividing the country into 14 regions, based on eth-
nic differences. Seven union republics were formed representing Arakan,
Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon, and Shan ethnic nations; while another
seven regions were created for the Burmese ethnic majority, which were
Rangoon, Irrawaddy, Tenasserim, Pegu, Magwe, Mandalay, and Sagaing.
However, even if such administrative divisions look like ethno-federalism,
in effect, the divisions, especially the ethnic ones, were deprived of the
basic characteristics of ethno-federalism such as autonomy and a high
degree of control over resources. In practice, therefore, the arrangement
was meant to facilitate a greater centralized administration, with a basic
faulty assumption of “a territorial policy that treats the great variety as a
single assimilable [sic] entity” (p. 274).
As an extension of the assimilationist policy, the state refused to tolerate
or accept any goal of the minority groups contrary to the Burmese-based
group interest. This prevented the non-Burmese groups from being inte-
grated with the Burmese culture based on Buddhism and the Burmese
language. This dominant attitude prevented the government from adopt-
ing policies of compromise, such as recognition of symbols of minor-
ity group identity. “In fact, the central government does not appear to
be interested in incorporating any symbolism or using other tactics that
might draw attention away from its primary objective: unity” (p. 284). As

20
such, the state policy has been mainly unitary assimilationist, infatuated by
the success in largely controlling groups such as the Chin and Mon which,
due to the internal weakness of sustainability of the separatist movement,
have sought accommodationist compromise. “The successes, in turn, rein-
force the uniterist strategy of the government and restrain it from dealing
with the most powerful groups on anything but an assimilationist level”
(p. 283). Indeed, as Robert Taylor (1982, p. 8) observed, “ethnic politics
is the obverse of the politics of national unity in modern Burma.” This
uniterist policy is thought to be a misdirected one. Thomson suggested
that “instead of focusing on ethnic groups per se, it would be productive
to examine geographical or ecological niches and the factors that contrib-
uted to binding these groups into sociological units” (p. 281).
The Rohingya Question in Myanmar’s
Ethnic Policy Context
Various studies have focused on Burmese history, politics, society, and its
ethnic and religious situation, but have not outlined and analyzed (or have
not intended to outline and analyze) the identity politics and ethnic poli-
cies of Burmese governments; nevertheless, the studies directly or indirectly
reflect or hint at the Rohingya issue. The most obvious limitation of the lit-
erature on ethnic minorities is that all studies to date focus only on particu-
lar, or selected, minorities such as the Karen (KWO 2007; Harriden 2002;
KHRG 2007; Smeaton 1887; South 2007), Kayah (Rastorfer 1994), Mon
(South 2003; Lang 2002), Chin (Sakhong 2003), Shan (SHRF 1998;
Yawnghwe 1987), and Kachin (Leach 1954), leaving smaller groups largely
invisible. Despite the Rohingya community’s untold sufferings due to
forced migration, it appears that scant attention has been paid to this ethnic
group on the Bangladesh-Myanmar border, compared with the problems
faced by other ethnic minorities on Myanmar’s border with other neigh-
boring states such as China, India, Laos, and Thailand. This reflects the lack
of importance shown toward the group, even by scholars.
Among the few, Moshe Yegar’s (1972) The Muslim of Burma: a Study
of Minority Groups is an in-depth historical study on the Muslim com-
munity in Burma. It describes the Muslims’ establishment in northern
Arakan as well as Burma, the Muslim influence in the Arakan kingdom,
and after independence, persecution of Muslims by the Burmese gov-
ernment. However, in the attempt to search for overall history of the
Burma’s Muslims, it described very little on the history of Rohingyas
1 INTRODUCTION

21
and Arakan. Mohammed Yunus’ (1994) book A History of Arakan: Past
and Present illustrates a brief history of Arakan, Muslim influence in the
Arakan kingdom, occupation of Arakan by the Burmese king, and con-
temporary military rule and persecution in Arakan. Although it is mostly
descriptive, it presents some important maps of Arakan and Burma, some
rare photographs of old coins and mosques that add credibility to the
quality of the book.
Historian Abdul Karim’s (2000) The Rohingyas: A Short Account of
Their History and Culture is an important contribution to the field of
Rohingya history. In this historical book, the author discussed the early
Muslim arrival in Arakan, Muslims’ role in the history of Arakan, the influ-
ence of Bengali literature and famous poets in the Arakan kingdom, and
Muslim Rohingyas’ situation during the British period. The work was
basically descriptive in nature and no specific time period was identified
in this research. J. A. Berlie’s (2008) The Burmanization of Myanmar’s
Muslims illustrates the diversity of Myanmar’s Muslims in various regions
of Myanmar. It argued that the Myanmar government’s Burmanization
process which started in 1962 affected the Arakanese Muslims most.
Although the argument was not very consistent, this book is an impor-
tant contribution to the field. Abid Bahar’s (2010) Burma’s Missing Dots
addresses the question of Burma’s democratic development, the history
of the Rohingyas and Arakan, and Burma’s nationalism and its xenopho-
bic attitude toward the Rohingyas. Imtiaz Ahmed’s (2010) The Plight of
the Stateless Rohingyas examines the conditions of the Rohingya refugees’
stateless situation, and the national and international responses to the
Rohingya refugees’ issue. Although this literature covering various aspects
of the Rohingya population provides important insights for understanding
the complexity of the issue, none has addressed the issue of identity con-
struction from the refugee group’s perspective.
Existing theories of citizenship and multiculturalism have less salience
in the present context of the Rohingyas. This is because the state-practiced
theory of citizenship denied political identity to this group of people, and
the multiculturalism theory does not address the displaced refugees in
the first place to define their identity. Multiculturalism theory addresses
political rights of the people who are considered already legitimate citizens
of a state. Yet, there remains a substantial number of displaced Rohingya
living in remote refugee camps in the borderland,3
who face an uncertain
future from both sides of the political boundary. The state’s version of
official narratives is constructed by the political elite based on its national
THE ROHINGYA QUESTION IN MYANMAR’S ETHNIC POLICY CONTEXT

22
interests, is likely to differ from human rights’ perspective that looks at the
problem as a humanitarian crisis. What is missing here is the marginalized
group’s perspective to ensure a holistic picture of the process of identity
formation.
This book offers an alternative political history, which includes peo-
ple’s narratives of their past, present, and future. This study has adopted
an ethnographic approach that goes beyond the contesting claims of the
states and to search for their identity in the very perspective of the people
themselves. To do this, the study applies three tools of analysis: collective
social memory, camp life experience, and music and the arts. This frame-
work contends two basic arguments. Firstly, the natural identity of the
refugee people is hidden in their collective social memory of their past life
and events prior to their imposed stateless status. Secondly, the present
stateless and refugee status in their exiled camp life generates symbolic lan-
guage embodied in music and art that contains conscious and unconscious
construction of the Rohingya identity.
Detailed Approach and Method of the Book
The study follows a qualitative approach, as it required ethnographic
research to document the causes of migration for the people concerned,
their everyday experience in exile, beliefs, perspectives, feeling, emotions,
angers, and distress. In doing so, through fieldwork in different phases,
a large amount of primary data is extracted using various tools such as
interviews, focus group discussions, and ethnographic observation. These
primary data are inalienable in capturing the perspective of the Rohingya
refugees. The location of this field study was in the far southeastern cor-
ner of Bangladesh, adjacent to Myanmar, in a place called Teknaf.4
It is
an upazila (sub-district) of Cox’s Bazar, and is bounded by Cox’s Bazar
district on the north, the Bay of Bengal on the south and west, and the
River Naff and the Arakan (currently Rakhine) region of Myanmar on the
east.5
In Teknaf sub-district, the main places where the Rohingya refugee
population lives are Jaliapara, Naitongpara, Mitha Panir Chora, Nayapara
official UNHCR refugee camps I and II, Leda, Shamlapur, and Shah Porir
Dip.6
The reason for selecting the border upazila of Teknaf 7
is that this
is where the maximum number of undocumented Rohingya refugees, as
well as one of the UNHCR-registered refugee camps Nayapara Camps I
and II, are located (Map 1.2).
1 INTRODUCTION

23
Map 1.2 Research sites in Teknaf. Source: Banglapedia, National Encyclopedia
of Bangladesh. Retrieved from Banglapedia website: http://www.banglapedia.
org/HT/C_0364.htm
DETAILED APPROACH AND METHOD OF THE BOOK

24
For my research, I was able to undertake several fieldtrips and spent a
total of six months’ time in the field, from June to August 2009, October
to November 2009, and in December 2010. I spent time with both the
documented and undocumented refugees to collect their social memo-
ries through interviews. At the end of the fieldwork, 62 had participated
in this study at different times from 2009 to 2010. Of the respondents,
32 were males, 30 were females; 30 registered, 32 unregistered; and 52
one-time migrants and 10 double-entry migrant refugees. The average
age range of the respondents was between 25 and 68 years. During my
fieldwork, I observed how they lived their lives, such as their cooking style
and eating habits, and other daily activities, and I tried to see life from
the perspective of a family, young refugees, and female refugees. In some
cases, I noted which family members stayed in camp, and who chose to go
out. During leisure time, I spent time chatting with young refugees who
could now speak proper Bengali, having spent a number of years in camp.
These details and observations provided me with insights about the com-
munity and helped me develop much-needed rapport so that they could
accept and trust me.
Interviews
Initially, it was necessary to create a sense of trust with the respondents.
Preliminary field visits were with the undocumented refugees; casually
meeting people and seeing them at work, and talking to them informally
helped me to choose likely interviewees. It was only after two weeks of field
visits that I was able to finalize my questionnaire. In the process of final-
izing, I used my field test experience with the population, which proved
to be fruitful in determining the order and structure of the questionnaire.
The most sensitive questions would be asked at the end of the interview,
or whenever a good rapport had been established with the respondent.
Following Da Corta and Venkateshwarlu (1993), the interview sessions
were divided into four sections. Firstly, demographic information, such as
name, gender, age, marital status, occupation, year of migration, and cur-
rent place of residence, was recorded; secondly, current history questions,
such as family members, how many were still in Burma, and the overall
socio-economic (and political) life in camps or off-camp situation, were
documented; thirdly, past history questions, such as why, and how, he/she
crossed into Bangladesh, the issue of Burmese identification card, relation-
ship with the local Rakhines in Arakan, and whether they had ever gone
1 INTRODUCTION

25
back to Burma after arriving in Bangladesh, were recorded; fourthly, more
sensitive questions, such as voluntary repatriation, third country resettle-
ment, and Rohingya ethnic identity, were documented. In some targeted
individual interviews, I asked the respondents two important, but highly
emotional, questions: firstly, how they felt and could they describe their
life as a refugee; and secondly, what it meant to live in a camp, or off-camp,
situation for refugees. Sometimes it took a long time for respondents to
be relaxed enough to fully and freely express their thoughts, memories,
and feelings. Thus, several sittings were needed to complete the question-
naire in such cases. Research on delicate, and sometimes painful subjects,
requires tact, sensitivity, and patience. It is important to note that ques-
tions were mostly descriptive in nature, and by maintaining a particular
sequence, were organized in a way that did not create confusion or sus-
picion. I did not distribute any questionnaire to the respondents; instead,
questions were memorized and discussed with them to make the inter-
view sessions natural and friendly. Questions were sometimes changed
or reshuffled, depending on the details and flow of the interview. This
approach particularly helped the refugees, as it allowed them the time and
space to express their feeling in a form of dialogue (Anderson and Jack
1991). A rigid and structured interview approach, carried out in a formal
manner, would be unlikely to elicit the narrative life stories of refugees.
An approach that is semi-structured, informally handled, and more open-
ended, is far less intimidating to respondents.
It would be worth mentioning here that before each interview, with
the help of my assistants, I clearly and repeatedly explained the purpose of
my study in detail and also reiterated my reassurance of the confidential-
ity I was to maintain. I made it clear that I was not a government agent
or anyone from the relief organization. I was simply a researcher trying
to deeply understand their issues. I explained my project in simple lan-
guage, so that the respondents understand it fully. Upon getting their oral
consent, interviews were conducted, and the time and duration for every
discussion were set according to the respondents’ convenience and avail-
ability. I interviewed the respondents in a distinctly inquisitive, rather than
interrogative, tone.
My research experience reveals that time and commitment are extremely
important requirements in such research. Commitment to understand-
ing the life stories of vulnerable groups, such as undocumented refugees,
helps drive the study. It was not easy for them to accept an outsider and
to express their feelings. Some individuals were afraid of talking and shar-

26
ing their experiences; perhaps because they were afraid of forced depor-
tation and also because they found it unusual for someone to show a
genuine interest in their life. Therefore, it was important for me to give
them enough time to feel safe and develop mutual trust. At that point,
having a local interpreter helped, as he/she explained that this interview
was entirely for research.8
Such an approach has two outcomes: firstly,
the respondents were assured that this was not an attempt to displace
them from their current location or something that might affect them
negatively, and secondly, it would not bring any financial benefit to them.
Some were clearly upset; as one respondent asked, “What benefit will it
bring for us?” The question seemed rational because some of these undoc-
umented refugees were so poor, they could not manage three meals a day
for their family, so they naturally expected that the visitors should know
their condition, and offer some kind of financial assistance. This placed
me in a very difficult position; as a fellow human, I felt empathy for his/
her plight, but equally, I simply could not provide payments to any of my
respondents. Researchers should be consistent, ethically responsible, and
honest with respondents.
In contrast to the undocumented refugees, the camp refugees responded
with enthusiasm, so long as they were assured that the camp officials were
not tracking our work, and we had permission from the camp-in-charge
(CiC) to do the interviews. Yet, in both cases (interviews with the undocu-
mented and documented refugees), I had to allocate plenty of time, for
the question and answer sessions were lengthy. Purposefully, in every case,
the interview time was selected with their schedules in mind, such that the
respondents were not busy with their work, and had some time to spare.
Giving respondents time allowed them opportunity to tell their stories,
but it also gave me an opportunity to take an in-depth look at, or to step
back and think about, the different layers and to explore meanings with
interviewees.
Furthermore, during interviews, an interactive environment was cre-
ated with the respondents, so that the usual “hierarchical relationship”
that forms part of any interview is reduced, or at least remains less visible
(Corradi 1991). This enabled the conversations to run smoothly. We must
not forget that they were being asked to recall, from the depths of their
memories, events which were painful, traumatic, sometimes horrifying,
and that they had little prospect of improved conditions. Therefore, in
every interview, often there were so many moments of silence. There were
emotional moments when sharing their traumatized past—some cried,
sometimes their hands trembled, and sometimes they were just quiet.
1 INTRODUCTION

27
Allowing time for feelings gave respondents the strength to express their
stories, and moments of silence sometimes revealed volumes about the
trauma or anxiety of the situation they were about to describe. Surveys
could not bring out or document this side of their story. In this sense,
lengthy interviews are sometimes essential, and the fact that the refugees
could take their time and remain silent was very important, to do justice
to the respondent and their painful memories of events.
In most of the cases, with their permission, the interviews were recorded
on a digital recorder. I recorded the text in the language in which it has
been transmitted, transcribing everything later. On rare occasions, a respon-
dent would not consent to the recording of an interview, which was most
understandable in the case of undocumented refugees hiding in the moun-
tain areas. In these cases, I jotted down phrases said during the interview,
and upon leaving their location, I immediately wrote down as much as I
remembered. In cases when it was not possible to write it down immedi-
ately, I recorded my voice stating the main points from the interview, so
that I could write notes later from those clues. On issues such as food, living
conditions, and education, which were very important to them, sometimes
refugees reminded me by asking “are you taking notes of these?” One par-
ticularly desperate voice pleaded: “Give me a place where I can die in peace.
I do not care whether it is on the land or in the sea … give me a place to die”
(an undocumented refugee from Jaliapara; notes from my journal).
Hence, in-depth individual interviews were extremely important in
data collection, for two main reasons: firstly, it allowed direct access to ref-
ugees’ personal narratives about their exodus from Myanmar. They were
able to discuss the consequences of being refugees, being stateless, and
the life politics of living in the borderland and of a life in exile. Secondly,
the interviews revealed many hidden aspects of personal life, such as their
trauma and pain, in relation to their memories in the past and present, and
various realities about their life in refugee camps or in an off-camp situa-
tion. Most importantly, it disclosed the private lives of the female refugees,
who rarely received attention from others, and revealed the significant
gendered dimensions of displacement.
Interviews also have drawbacks worth reflecting upon. There is always
a chance that respondents exaggerate or falsify actual experience, so as
to make their narratives more exciting or convincing. However, when
hearing so many stories of violence, forcible migration, and hardship, it
becomes very obvious that most of the respondents were simply recount-
ing events that actually happened. The cumulative narratives become tell-
ing testimony that was far from anecdotal. If something terrible occurred,

28
it was the matter-of-fact narrative that becomes most compelling. The
majority of people I heard from did not much care whether we trusted
them or not. The reason they shared their experiences with me was with
the hope that others would hear what had truly happened, and was still
happening, to them. They hoped for a better and safer future. Sometimes
there were inconsistencies in their narratives about dates and the year in
which certain incidents took place, or vague recollections of migration
routes, and so on. In this type of situation, it was important to cross-
reference with other data and interviews to check the reliability of data
collected from the sources.
Focus Group Discussions
Focus group discussions enable a large number of respondents to be inter-
viewed. Having group discussions was not difficult in the case of refugees,
as they were within convenient access. Often, it just so happened that
the neighborhood would gather while I was having a discussion with the
respondents. In some cases, I had to request that the curious neighborhood
leave us for a while so I could talk to the participant in private. At other
times, close family members were allowed to stay close by and, if interested,
to comment or add to the conversation. In a way, allowing neighborhood
families to stay at the beginning of discussion provided the opportunity to
see whether the other adult refugees were agreeing with the person sharing
his or her experiences. It happened that when the participant was missing
the year of migration from Myanmar or the exact year of repatriation from
Bangladesh, someone from the gathering who also had the same experience
would mention the year, or to correct or help the respondent.
A particular example was during a discussion with an undocumented
refugee family in Jaliapara. I had asked how my respondent knew what the
military were announcing, if he did not speak or read the Burmese lan-
guage. Immediately, some people in the group became agitated and, in an
animated way, said that they did understand Burmese. Some of the people
argued that their language skills were constrained by the fact they were not
allowed to attend school beyond the primary level. Another middle-aged
man then started to talk in Burmese, reiterating the military announcement.
While my lack of Burmese prevented me from understanding his statements,
I was able to observe that the other people fully agreed with him. These
experiences emphasized to me the research values of group discussions, for
it is in the intra-group responses and engagements that the researcher can
truly verify the validity of certain issues, questions, and points.
1 INTRODUCTION

29
This method was applied to both male and female refugee respondents
in small groups of four to five people in many settings—on the corridor
between their huts, in fields, and in their workplace—to collect infor-
mation on specific topics. Discussion with the refugees was particularly
important to collect data through memory recall about issues such as what
had happened to them; who had come during military operations or after
the 1990s general election; who were the people that had come from the
same villages of Arakan; what type of restrictions did they face; how did
the repatriation to Myanmar take place; what were the returned refugees’
experience during the forcible repatriation; and what were the problems
faced by the females in refugee camps.
In a group discussion, topics were raised one after another, and the ref-
ugees helped each other to recall their memories and correct each other if
there was any error in opinion. My research assistant helped me to interact
with them through arguments and counterarguments. Discussions were
lively, as the participants were selected, based on their similar experiences
and their willingness to sit and discuss each other about the topic. The
questions were not directed to individuals but, rather, to the group, which
also gave the individuals a certain level of comfort to freely discuss the
topic. To aid the flow of discussion, I used gestures to elicit more detailed
description and to encourage further elaboration of significant points.
In this way, I was able to collect a good amount of data within a short
period of time. It allowed to focus on specific topics and brought in-depth
discussion with a small number of participants. Most importantly, it not
only helped to cross-check some testimonies, the gaps, or inconsistencies
that occurred during the individual interviews, but also allowed me to
learn more about those participants’ perspectives whose voices are often
marginalized.
Group discussions do not always lead to agreement. One of the most
fruitful aspects of focus groups was that sometimes it would lead to dis-
agreements and contradictory issues. For instance, there was disagreement
about whether it was good for them to stay in camps. Some of these prob-
lems were addressed with another methodological tool: the ethnographic
observation.
Ethnographic Observation
While doing individual interviews, my primary attention was on the
responses to my questions, but I found myself looking into issues I had not
originally intended to examine. For example, people’s behaviors, different

30
symbols, communication systems, and things like that. Therefore, besides
the interview and group discussion methods, an ethnographic observation
was used for data collection. Ethnographic observation “does not rely on
what people say they do, or what they say they think, rather it draws on the
direct evidence of the eye to witness events first hand” (Denscombe 1998,
p. 139). Given the situation that the refugees were accessible, this method
was a very suitable option for this research. I applied this method, as they
were within walking distance from my in-field home, and was able to
observe them regularly, such as their attitude, business dealings, and rela-
tionships with other agencies such as camp officials, international agencies,
and the local Bengalis. This provided me with the chance of getting close
to the study community, becoming an eyewitness to events in their day-to-
day life, and studying the community in their natural environment.
Application of this method opened up a door to the “non-
conventional” aspects of refugee life. Featuring the “non-conventional”
aspects, such as drawings and music, in refugee life was something that
emerged in the course of my interviews with the refugees. It was in
the process of conducting the individual interviews that I noticed that
the refugees frequently used visual means of communication, which
sparked my interest to document this form of communication. For
example, in one interview with a refugee at Nayapara, in response to
my question as to why he came to Bangladesh, he was so eager to
convey his message that while talking he tried to explain by drawing
on the mud floor, using a thin stick he had absentmindedly picked up
from around the corner. He was trying to let me know as much of the
details, such as the location of his home in Arakan and the difficul-
ties he had faced. Indeed, as he drew the pictures, things did become
clearer to me. He explained:
You see, here is the mountain of Arakan [showing some jagged lines]. This
is Arakan [pointing to the Western part of mountain], it is Myanmar, just
the other side of River Naff. [Pointing to the area between Arakan moun-
tain and the River Naff], here is my town Mongdaung. Muslim Rohingyas
are mostly located here in Mongdaung, Buthidaung and Akiab townships.
And these are the places where the government has imposed restrictions on
us. We are unable to work, or search for work outside of our villages. We
need permission (thokkhainja) for that. Military and NaSaKa [border secu-
rity force] often raid our villages. They threaten us with their guns. They
humiliate our women, kill people, and take us for forced labor. We had very
little food to eat. Because of these persecutions (zulm, ottachar), we had to
leave our home by crossing this River Naff.
1 INTRODUCTION

31
As he was talking and sketching on the ground, I realized that it was
fascinating just to look at that sketch, and that immediately triggered in
my mind another thought: getting his drawing on paper. I felt that such
drawings would be very effective, as they provide a vivid description of
refugees’ perspective, and would help understand their situation better. It
did not take me long to understand what he was saying, by just looking
at his sketch. I said, “you draw really well, have you ever drawn this on
paper?” He replied, “No … but, I often do this to tell our stories about
how and why we are here [in refugee camp] while explaining to my chil-
dren.” I asked him to draw these on paper so that I could use it in my
research. Next day, when I visited him in the camp, to my surprise, at least
six other individuals also came to me with their sketches, and each of them
had their deep, emotional, and difficult story to tell. The idea of getting
refugees’ self-drawn pictures came from there, and in all I have collected
15 such drawings. I selected several for further discussion in Chap. 7, as
evidence that their life experience was more powerful than just narratives.
After all, these are primary documents from those that have gone through
the experiences.
In addition to their drawings, I also found Rohingya songs to be partic-
ularly expressive, helping to illustrate aspects of their collective sense of self
and culture. The idea of collecting Rohingya songs was always in my mind,
as I knew that poems and songs could be meaningful and could easily be
used to transmit messages to others, especially under difficult situations.
For example, during the nine-month-long liberation war of Bangladesh in
1971, some country songs and poems were produced, targeting certain
audiences to draw their attention and to inspire them to fight against the
Pakistani army. With that in mind, I was interested to find out whether
displaced Rohingyas also had songs to communicate with others and to
bind them together as a community. As I searched for these, I found inter-
esting songs that expressed more about their lives and life experiences.
Who were the individuals producing these images and songs? They
were the ordinary Rohingyas from every walk of life—male and female,
registered and unregistered, single mother, rickshaw puller, day laborer,
and beggar. It was noteworthy that they were not immediately willing to
share these documents with me, given their very close emotional attach-
ment to their drawings, and the content within. That came along with the
passage of time, as they found me talking and listening to them, and also
they found me among local they trusted. This was especially true with the
undocumented refugees. It was only after some interactions with them
through interviews and social mixing, and as I participated in their daily

32
life, that they gradually opened up to share more details with me. In the
case of Nayapara camp refugees, as I continually assured them that I had
permission from the CiC to talk to them, and I visited them often and
spent time with them, all these incredible documents were proffered, and
I came to know the individuals better than before. Once, a family from
Nayapara camp even brought their musical instruments, hidden in a jute-
sack (not usually meant for the outsiders to see), and performed songs
for me.
Refugee drawings were relatively rare. It was a reflection of their mem-
ory, yet rarely became materialized for other purposes. Though they were
not aware of it, this was an effective way to communicate with outsiders.
Later, I found out that several had done it before for a non-governmental
organization that helped them (Thom 2008). It was interesting to find
that music has become quite widespread among Rohingyas’ daily life.
Whether documented or undocumented refugees, they shared this com-
mon interest that seems to have become an important part of their lives.
It has been a medium for them to express their frustration, to communi-
cate among themselves, and also to communicate with the outside world.
Therefore, I worked with the premise that these were valuable data and I
was interested to feature this aspect of Rohingya life in my thesis by focus-
ing on their music and art works. I present these valuable unconventional
documents as text, as an original documentary record of the individuals’
experiences as portrayed in the form of visual productions.
Overall, this observation method helped to obtain an in-depth under-
standing of the community, its social structure, and pertinent aspects
of refugee life. This method provided an opportunity to see aspects of
their day-to-day life and to cross-check data collected from other field-
work techniques. For example, in prior individual interviews and group
discussions, the refugees had mentioned various aspects of their social
and political reality in the field. Ethnographic observation gave me the
opportunity to cross-check the reliability of that information. Also, when
refugees refused to cooperate in interviews or group discussion, observa-
tion provided a good substitute. I observed their activities at home and at
work, noticed their attitude and behavior in dealing with other refugees,
and learned about their tradition and communication skills without asking
any questions. In doing so, I was able to learn how they actually coped
with real-life situations.
One major criticism of the observation method is that the researcher’s
view may not be truly objective, and may, in fact, be influenced by the
1 INTRODUCTION

33
researcher’s personality and perspective. While there are some truths in
such claims, there are notable advantages as well. To overcome this prob-
lem, I used a combination of the methodological tools, “triangulation”
including interviews, and focus group discussions. Moreover, using these
methodological tools was crucial in collecting information and cross-
checking data, which gave me insights into the individuals’ experiences
and their motives. Throughout all these steps, I had to use my imagination
and persistence to obtain difficult information.
A careful analysis of the data is made in the subsequent chapters using
appropriate tools suitable for specific chapters. However, it must be recog-
nized that all the claims made are data-specific, and subjective qualitative
interpretation of the data is not immune from challenge, along with the
possibility of multiple and further interpretations from various perspectives.
Chapter 2 provides the historical and socio-political contexts, the his-
torical setting into which identities are constructed, indicating to exam-
ine the long-term root causes of displacement. In particular, it explores
the ways in which ethnic difference has been manifested in pre-colonial
and colonial history, and politicized the state-minority relationships in the
post-independence modern-day Burma/Myanmar. It attempts to unfold
the power dynamics in Myanmar and situates various crises that led to the
events of displacement and forced migration.
Chapter 3 examines more closely the nature and context of the official
accounts of the three agencies responsible for deciding the outcome of the
Rohingya refugees. The first section describes Myanmar’s official position
and perspective on the Rohingya problem, and its policy toward the ref-
ugee crisis. The second section describes the Bangladesh government’s
position and the solutions it offers. The third section presents the views
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as a
non-state actor, on the Rohingya problem. This section presents an analy-
sis of the perspectives from all three agencies, and possible implications.
In contrast to the official discourses on the refugee situation men-
tioned in the above chapter, the next three chapters will look at identity
and belonging from refugees’ experiential perspective. Chapter 4 uses the
tool of social memory to get a sense of the refugees’ collective identity.
This chapter argues that the refugees maintain a collective memory of
their past, which includes their home, history, tradition, culture, religion,
and interactions with certain state institutions and authorities. Another
dimension of social memory includes numerous kinds of social, political,
economic, and religious persecutions that have occurred, in the form of

Memories of Burmese Rohingya Refugees: Contested Identity and Belonging 1st ed. 2017 Edition by Kazi Fahmida Farzana (Author)

Memories of Burmese Rohingya Refugees: Contested Identity and Belonging 1st ed. 2017 Edition by Kazi Fahmida Farzana (Author)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Memories of Burmese Rohingya Refugees: Contested Identity and Belonging 1st ed. 2017 Edition by Kazi Fahmida Farzana (Author)

Similar to Memories of Burmese Rohingya Refugees: Contested Identity and Belonging 1st ed. 2017 Edition by Kazi Fahmida Farzana (Author) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (9)

Memories of Burmese Rohingya Refugees: Contested Identity and Belonging 1st ed. 2017 Edition by Kazi Fahmida Farzana (Author)